REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KATHERINE MENENDEZ, Magistrate Judge.

Permchand S. is a native and citizen of Guyana who came to the United States in April of 2011. (Siekert Decl., Ex. A at 4, ECF No. 9-1.) In February of 2017, Permchand S. was convicted of a crime in Hennepin County District Court that made him subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227. (Id.; id., Ex. A at 10-37.) United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") took Permchand S. into custody on September 29, 2017, and an Immigration Judge ordered him removed from the United States on February 14, 2018. (Id. at 5-8, 49.) Permchand S. appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), and on July 25, 2018, the BIA upheld the Immigration Judge's decision. (Id. at 51-55.) On August 14, 2018, Guyana issued a travel document for Permchand S. (Id. at 58-59.)

Petitioner Premchand S. filed this habeas corpus action on July 31, 2018, seeking release from his ongoing custody by ICE pending his removal from the United States. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) He claimed in his Petition that his continued detention was in violation of federal statutes and the United States Constitution. (See Pet'r's Aff. at 7-8, ECF No. 2.) Because the Respondents' August 30, 2018 response to the Petition indicated that a travel document had been issued for Permchand S. and that he would likely be removed from the United States soon (ECF No. 8), on October 9, 2018, the Court ordered Respondents to provide an update on their efforts to effect Permchand S.'s removal. (ECF No. 12.) Respondents have now shown that Permchand S. was removed from the United States on October 4, 2018. (Suppl. Seikert Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B at 2.)

"Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies." Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000). Once a proceeding ceases to present a live case or controversy, the Court must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2005). Courts consistently conclude that when a petitioner in a habeas action such as this is removed from the United States and returned to his native country, there is no longer a live case or controversy because a court can no longer order the relief sought in the petition. See, e.g., Hassan v. I.C.E., No. 13-cv-841 (PJS/LIB), 2013 WL 3974522, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2013) (Order adopting report and recommendation); Mhanna v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 10-cv-292 (JRT/LIB), 2010 WL 5141803, at *11-12 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2010). Permchand S. is not in the custody of any of the Respondents because he has been returned to Guyana. Therefore, the Court cannot give Permchand S. the relief he seeks in his petition—an order requiring immediate release pending his removal. No case or controversy remains, and this action is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be DENIED AS MOOT, the Motion to Grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2) be DENIED, and this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.